Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Delighted to see this piece, Nancy. For those of us associated with the CGIAR nearly from its founding, and to have observed the world Bank's critical role in its establishment, and later in averting CGIAR's financial crisis, it has been surprising to see the proposed cuts in support. They convey a lack of sense of history as well as the remaining challenge: nearly 795 million people are still undernourished. With climate change sustaining food productivity growth will be a harder than before, particularly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, continents with the greatest remaining incidence of poverty and hunger at a time when the Bank has embraced SDGs. It must continue its leadership in financing.
Uma Lele, Author of forthcoming book ",Foo d for All, International Organizations and the Tranformation of Agriculture".

The Bank grant contribution is significant because it is core funding. Despite calls from the 2008 Review of the CGIAR for a return to its 60% core funding, the donors have yet to significantly increase core funding. There is a worrying increase in "Window Three" funding which is tied to specific donor interest. It was to be closed over time.

Core Funding funding supports capital investment such as lab development, Human Resource development, organizational change and scientific innovations not part of specific programs. Donor funding of the challenge programs was a step in the right direction but much funding remains tied to small individual projects. This brings high transactions costs and disempowers CG leadership in their ability to focus their Centers on more on more strategic initiatives. The loss of $50 million from the Bank is significant also because it is read by some as a political signal on the value of the CG.

Mission creep and multiple agendas are never good.
The World Bank should remain focused on providing long term finance to enable increase in supply of national public goods in countries pursuing growth.
Funding Global Public Goods is not the world bank's business or its core competency.

Much of the environmental damage in developing country agriculture can be linked to the initiatives of two leading institutions--CGIAR and IRRI--promoters of the "green revolution". Excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers, groundwater depletion, and large investment and O&M burdens on governments have stemmed from their approach to raising the productivity of smallholder farming. Moreover, they have proven to be impervious to innovation that could set the developing world's agriculture on an environmentally benign path. paying lip service or fighting, for example, the introduction and spread of new systems of intensification and climate smart methods. The other institutions Birdsall mentions, like the paper and conference conveyor belt that GDN has been. deserve no funding. They are all on development talk, not action, and at best deserve token amounts to help them with their convening function, not much else. The World Bank has taken a bold step towards re-examining all of its policies and programs, and it is high time it addressed these sacred cows.

This purpose would make logical sense from the theoretical point of view. However, the implication of the @WorldBank managing global public goods brings about major hurdles, for instance: Where does the public and private division begin and end? Is access to water and air an inalienable right? Does this expand to food and land used for crops? If so, who and how would the current supply and ownership of food crops be managed? Are forests public goods being that they provide clean air? Who decides how resources will be managed and how to enforce policies put in place?
These policies would inevitably have an inverse relationship between the well being of global citizens and the profitability of private corporations, therefore, such policies would have an important impact in people's lives. In light of this fact, to allow the World Bank to embrace such a mission, their governance and directives appointment would have to be modified to resemble a global democratic process that is reflective of the interest of countries being affected by the Bank's decisions on management of public goods. Right now the election of their board members and directive positions is a private process that would need to become public.
Furthermore, the bank would need diversity of theoretical framework if we want to make sure that public goods are in fact being protected, since the model of unlimited growth and environmental protection contradict each other. While the majority of leaders in the World Bank are stuck in neo-liberal economic models that are fueling inequality.

To further complicate things, funding for the world bank comes from developed countries that have certain private interests in the outcomes of economic development of poor countries. For the bank to be truly independent in their decisions and efforts to protect the well being of citizens of the world, the bank should also be allowed to create its own currency, in a way that it can serve as temporary financial framework to support failed states who lack the infrastructure to establish a credible currency that can fuel jobs. i.e People can pay each other with @WorldBank coins until the country gains structural momentum to create their own currency and trade internationally.

Again, in theory it is a fantastic new mission, and while it is doable, it won't come without the need for monumental changes in the way the institution is currently organized.
forwardeconomics.net